n
Kirsty Young
U N I V E R S I T Y O F T E C H N O L O G Y, S Y D N E Y
New theories continue to emerge to help us understand how children learn and
how to effectively teach them. We must be mindful, however, of the value of
previously developed and well-established theories. This paper presents findings
from a study that investigated the consistency with which children perform
within a given developmental stage of spelling. This study expands upon
previous understanding of the developmental stage theory of spelling by
examining children’s spelling consistency across a broad range of spelling
related activities (word lists, natural writing samples, editing activities and
word sorting activities). The findings of this study indicate that children’s
orthographic knowledge aligns very consistently with their current stage of
spelling development across a range of activities.
Introduction
The ability to spell has not diminished despite the ubiquitous use of computers and the Internet by many members of our society. In fact, spelling
skills (or lack thereof) are now more publicly exposed than ever before as
people communicate widely through email, self-published websites and
weblogs on the Internet.
Indeed, a brief review of the popular adolescent website MySpace
(www.myspace.com) reveals four types of non-conforming spellings :
•
•
•
•
YOUNG • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2007. pp. 203–220
Developmental stage theory of spelling:
Analysis of consistency across four spellingrelated activities
acronyms (eg. ‘lol’ for ‘laugh out loud’)
abbreviations (eg. ‘gr8’ for ‘great’, ‘wkend’ for ‘weekend’)
purposeful phonetic spellings (eg. ‘u’ for you and ‘luv’ for love)
spelling errors (eg. ‘chor’ for ‘chore’ and ‘cought’ for ‘caught’).
Although evident in online text, these spellings are a long way from
being acceptable forms of written communication in formal situations. All
written texts are subject to our conscious or unconscious evaluations about
the literacy ability of the author and opinions are generally negative, especially with respect to type (d) spelling errors.
Spoken and written languages evolve to reflect socio-cultural changes.
However, the beliefs that correct spelling gives writing credibility, and that
203
Australian
Journal of Language
and Literacy
YOUNG • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2007. pp. 203–220
204
Volume 30
Number 3
October 2007
developments in technology have not replaced the need for spelling knowledge, hold true today (New South Wales Department of Education and
Training, 1998). Since spelling was formalised there has been relative consensus that spelling is an important functional skill for educated citizens.
Research abounds to suggest that parents and teachers in particular value
the importance of spelling accuracy. Chandler and the Mapleton teacherresearch group (2000), for example, surveyed 126 parents and found that 100
percent believed spelling is important or extremely important. Research
studies such as this support the statement previously made by Bean and
Bouffler (1987):
standard spelling has assumed importance beyond the function it plays in
written language. It has become the ‘ticket’ to the literacy club – the heir to the
traditions and scholarly world of print. (p. 67)
On the premise that accurate spelling is still an important and significant
skill, this paper reports on one aspect of a study that examined the extent to
which the developmental stage theory of spelling captures children’s consistency of orthographic knowledge across a range of written, verbal and practical spelling activities.
Developmental stage theory of spelling
Models of spelling development emerged in parallel with cognitive stage
theories, and developmental spellings are believed to result from the different strategies children use at various stages of cognitive development (Ellis,
1994, 1997; Gentry, 1984). A notable researcher in the area of spelling development, Gentry (1981, 1984), surmised that ongoing research has demonstrated that children’s writing moves through strictly defined stages that,
similar to oral language, proceed from simple to more complex activities,
with the reshaping of cognitive structures at each level.
Evolution of the developmental stage theory of spelling can be traced to
a study conducted by Charles Read. Read (1971) examined the assumption
that children’s memorised bits of generally unpredictable spelling failed to
account for the abilities of mature readers and writers. On this basis he
investigated preschool children’s knowledge of English orthography by
examining their ‘invented spellings’. Read found that the children arrived at
common and systematic spellings for unknown words. This heralded the
beginnings of research into the development stage theory of spelling.
Scholars at the University of Virginia questioned Read’s findings and
undertook studies to build upon his research (see for example Beers, Beers &
Grant, 1977; Beers & Henderson, 1977). Like Read, the Virginia-based
researchers also utilised error analysis to study the invented spellings of children. As a result of these studies, specific stages of spelling development
were identified.
random symbols to represent words
↓
some sounds in words represented
↓
all sounds in words represented
↓
awareness of orthographic patterns
↓
application of syllable rules
↓
application of derivational/meaning knowledge
↓
generally accurate spellings
In other words, the stages follow the ordering principles in the English
spelling system: first knowledge of the alphabet and letter sounds, followed
by understanding of letter patterns and sequences, and then awareness of
the meaning relationships between English words (Henderson & Templeton
1986).
Key researchers, and others who have interpreted their findings, provide
specific and extremely detailed descriptions of the characteristics of each
stage of development. An overview of the various stages, as defined by
notable researchers in this area, is presented in Table 1.
Table 2 summarises the specific characteristics of each developmental
stage, which has been discerned by the author from the work of prominent
researchers of the development stage theory of spelling (Bear & Templeton,
1998; Bear, Truex & Barone, 1989; Beers & Henderson, 1977; Bissex, 1980;
Gentry, 1982, 1987, 1993; Henderson, 1990; Henderson & Beers, 1980;
Henderson & Templeton, 1986).
Beers and Beers (1992) concisely summarise the findings that have resulted from the developmental stage theory research as follows:
this research has led to several conclusions: (1) the spelling errors that
children make as they write are not random errors, (2) there are indeed
identifiable stages of orthographic awareness through which children
pass as they become more proficient in their writing, and (3) children
proceed through these stages at varying rates. (p. 231)
YOUNG • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2007. pp. 203–220
Characteristics of the developmental stages of spelling
A review of predominant research in this area revealed that although stages
differ in name and number there is a clear developmental sequence:
205
Australian
Journal of Language
and Literacy
Table 1. Overview of various developmental stages in spelling by key
researchers.
Stage BEERS
GENTRY
EHRI
ZUTELL
HENDERSON BEAR
1
Prephonetic Precommunicative
2
Early
phonetic
Semiphonetic
Semiphonetic Letter-name- Letter-Name
sound
correspondences
Prephonetic/
Semiphonetic
3
Phonetic
Phonetic
Phonetic
Letter-names
4
Structural
Transitional
Morphemic
5
6
Meaning/ Correct/
Derivational Conventional
7
Correct
206
Volume 30
Number 3
October 2007
Preliterate
Preliterate/
Prephonemic
Structural
Patterns
Within-word
patterns
Within-word
patterns
Inflectional
Patterns
Syllable
Juncture
Syllable
Juncture
Derivational Derivational
Patterns
Constancy
Derivational
Constancy
Additionally, it is claimed that children do not fluctuate radically
between these stages. Once a stage has been mastered, children generally do
not revert to earlier stage characteristics (Gentry, 1982; Lutz, 1986). For
example, if a child were identified to be performing in the Within-word
Pattern Stage, they would not revert to spelling unknown words pre-phonetically
For the purposes of this paper and within the study described here, the
sequence of spelling development defined by Bear in Table 1 has been used:
Preliterate, Prephonetic, Letter-Name, Within-Word Pattern, Syllable
Juncture, Derivational Constancy. Bear’s sequence has been recognised by a
number of other researchers as encapsulating widely accepted features (see,
Table 2. Summary of expected skills and characteristics at each developmental stage of spelling.
STAGES AND SKILLS
Pre-Phonemic Stage
Individual letters used to represent syllables or whole words
Expected
Y/N
Y
Initial sound always represented
N
Vowel elements represented
N
Final sound always represented
Letter-Name Stage
N
Short vowels written with predictable substitutions
Y
‘ed’ endings spelled by sound
Y
Long vowels represented by closest letter name
Consonant sounds generally consistent
All phonemes represented (although some may be unconventional)
Uses letter ‘r’ to represent r-controlled vowels
Y
Y
Y
Y
Affricates correct
N
Long vowel markers represented
N
Pre-consonant nasals represented
Regard for acceptable English orthography
Within-Word Pattern Stage
N
N
V-C-e pattern used
Y
Inflectional endings correct
Y
Highly frequent patterns correct (eg. ‘ight’)
Short vowel sounds correctly represented
Pre-consonant nasals represented
Vowel in every syllable
R-controlled vowel patterns represented (not always accurately)
Long vowels represented (not always accurately)
Complex consonant units accurately represented (eg. ‘tch’)
Schwa sounds in unaccentuated syllables accurately represented
Syllable Juncture Stage
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Single syllables in words spelled correctly
Y
R-controlled patterns applied to multi-syllabic words
Y
Long vowel patterns applied to multi-syllabic words
Evidence of doubling rules when adding suffixes
Evidence of ‘dropping e’ rules when adding suffixes
Y
Y
Y
Vowel patterns in unstressed syllables accurately represented (eg. soler for solar)
N
Mastery of two and three syllable words
Y
Root words represented in terms of meaning
Y
Derivational Constancy Stage
Assimilated prefixes characterised by doubled consonants (eg. illiterate and irrelevant)
Y
YOUNG • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2007. pp. 203–220
208
Volume 30
Number 3
October 2007
for example, Henderson, 1990; Henderson & Templeton, 1986; Templeton &
Bear, 1992; Templeton & Scarborough-Franks, 1985).
The impetus for the study described in this paper was a concern that the
developmental stages appeared too ‘tidy’ to accurately capture the diversity
of individuals found in any one classroom. Also, much of the existing
research relied on analysis of spelling errors from word lists and natural
writing samples alone and did not examine orthographic knowledge
evident in other forms of spelling activity (such as editing and sorting
words).
The Study
Research participants
Six Year 3 children attending a government school on Sydney’s North Shore
participated in this study. The children were chosen based on two criteria:
(1) they each spelled words above the prephonetic stage of development,
and (2) were able to orally express themselves.
A range of students performing at each of the developmental stages was
desired. In order to identify appropriate participants, the Ganske (1993)
Developmental Spelling Analysis – A Qualitative Measure for Assessment and
Instruction – Screening Inventory was conducted with an entire Year 3 class.
From this, twelve children who were representative of a variety of developmental stages were identified. Discussion with the classroom teacher regarding each child’s ability to articulate their thoughts resulted in the choice of
six participants: Matt, Kathryn, Mina, Max, India and Eric.
Research design
In the first instance the current stage of spelling development was determined for each participant using the Ganske (1993) instrument, which consists of a Screening Inventory, which examines all stages, and various Feature
Inventories, which examine each stage in-depth. Second, five natural writing
samples (two draft stories and three journal entries) were examined using
the Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton and Johnson (1996) checklist. The Bear et al.
(1996) checklist uses natural writing samples to identify developmental
stages. For each stage of development (Preliterate, Early Letter-Name,
Letter-Name, Within-Word Pattern, Syllable Juncture and Derivational
Constancy) specific elements are noted as existent, or not, in the writing
samples and reported as a percentage of total correct to total spelled.
Determination of spelling consistency
The two identification measures described above provided a very clear indication of the current stage of development of each participant and were,
therefore, important data collection sources. In addition to these two forms
of data, a series of editing activities and word sorting activities were also
•
•
•
open word sorts – where the participants independently sorted words
(flashcards) based on their own criteria
closed word sorts – where the researcher sorted the words (flashcards)
into categories and the participants were asked to identify the
researcher’s categories
written words – where the participants were given keyword headings
and asked to sort words by writing each word dictated by the researcher
in one of the headed columns.
Overall, the range of spelling-related tasks and activities used to capture
participants’ consistency across their developmental stage included:
•
•
•
•
•
word lists (three lists per student from the Ganske (1993) tool)
natural writing samples (using the Bear et al. (1996) checklist)
editing activities
word sorting tasks
researcher-developed derivational constancy spelling list (for participants at later stages of spelling development).
From the literature reviewed related to stages of spelling development,
this appears to be the broadest range of activities used to determine the consistency with which a child performs spelling-related tasks within their
identified stage of development.
The following section presents an overview of the consistency with
which each participant spelled within his or her identified stage of spelling.
Inconsistencies are determined by identifying all words that are spelled:
YOUNG • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2007. pp. 203–220
incorporated. The participants were asked to ‘think aloud’ whilst they edited
passages purposefully constructed by the researcher and also while editing
their own work. The participants were also asked to ‘think aloud’ as they
engaged in word sorting activities that were carefully constructed to incorporate word features expected at each level of spelling development. Word
sorting activities included:
(a) incorrectly – demonstrating orthographic understanding below the
child’s developmental stage
(b) correctly – demonstrating orthographic understanding above the child’s
identified developmental stage.
For example, a child spelling at the Within-Word Pattern Stage would be
evaluated on the spelling of the word ‘brake’ as follows:
‘braik’ – consistent with stage because children performing at this stage are
expected to ‘use but confuse’ long vowel patterns
‘brak’ – inconsistent because children at this stage are expected to represent
long vowel sounds (although these may be incorrectly spelled).
209
Australian
Journal of Language
and Literacy
YOUNG • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2007. pp. 203–220
210
Volume 30
Number 3
October 2007
The word ‘braking’ would be evaluated as follows:
‘brakeing’ – consistently spelled at Within-Word Pattern Stage because
spellers at this level are not expected to correctly apply Syllable Juncture
features (such as dropping -e to add vowel ending)
‘braking’ – inconsistent, because although the spelling is correct, the child is
applying orthographic knowledge related to a multi-syllabic word.
Therefore, in the summary of each participant presented below, (b) and
(d) above would be recorded as inconsistencies within the developmental
stage theory of spelling for the child.
The spelling features being used to evaluate consistency within each
stage of development are found in Table 1 presented earlier in this paper.
Developmental stage profile of the participants
(a) Matt
Current stage of performance
Based on the initial identification tools (Ganske, 1993; Bear et al., 1996) Matt
was found to be spelling at the Within-Word Pattern Stage. Given the generally low scores found at this stage, he is considered to have recently entered
the Within-Word Pattern Stage of development at the time this study was
undertaken.
Review of Matt’s spellings over the range of activities indicates that were
28 inconsistencies below his developmental stage and 3 inconsistencies
above the Within-Word Pattern Stage, as shown below.
These inconsistencies are considered minimal when you consider 817
individual words were examined. Interestingly, where these inconsistencies
are present it is across the spectrum of activities – relative to the number of
words available for each type of activity.
Inconsistencies at a level above the Within-Word Stage of spelling development (being Matt’s current working stage) are virtually non-existent. The
three instances that were identified occurred in natural writing samples and
involved doubling or dropping the final –e before adding a vowel ending.
Importantly it was confirmed with the classroom teacher that the spelling
rules associated with doubling and dropping the final –e had recently been
introduced in the classroom and could account for these correct spellings. It
is noted, however, that this Syllable Juncture Stage knowledge was applied
incorrectly more times than it was evidenced as a correct spelling.
(b) Cathryn
Current stage of performance
The initial assessment results indicated Cathryn was also performing at
Within-Word Pattern Stage and her writing samples were analysed for consistency within that particular stage of development.
Words spelt at level below identified developmental stage
Developmental Spelling
Lists (Ganske x 3)
Natural writing samples
Written word sorting
activities
Editing activities
crwl (crawl)
brig (bridge)
durm (drum)
feid (fed)
grap (grape)
bach (back)
fale (fall)
ate (at)
puping (pumping)
cutes (cuts)
asove (observe)
get (jet)
slide (slid)
cwite (quite)
floch (flock)
punt (point)
torn (turn)
snacks (snakes)
pichd (picked)
tornd (turned)
skalaten (skeleton)
hep (heap)
kepd (kept)
jumpt (jumped)
eithr (either)
handz (hands)
gam (game)
mixt (mixed)
sitting
hitting
having
Words spelt at level above identified developmental stage
Developmental spelling
lists (Ganske x3)
Natural writing samples
Word sort activities
YOUNG • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2007. pp. 203–220
Table 3. Developmental stage inconsistencies: Matt.
Editing activities
There were 23 inconsistencies evident in Cathryn’s spellings that were
below her current stage of development and 6 above. These inconsistencies
are derived from all four activities under investigation, but they comprise a
small percentage of the 858 words analysed.
Cathryn produced several more inconsistencies above her developmental stage than Matt. These words reflect some Syllable Juncture knowledge.
Again, we must take account of the recent introduction of relevant spelling
rules in the classroom, which would explain Cathryn’s correct spelling of
hopping, lining, shaking and hopped.
Again, the inconsistencies identified in Cathryn’s spellings, both above
and below the Within-Word Pattern Stage, are not substantial when consid-
211
Australian
Journal of Language
and Literacy
YOUNG • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2007. pp. 203–220
Table 4. Developmental stage inconsistencies: Cathryn.
Words spelt at level below identified developmental stage
Developmental Spelling
Lists (Ganske x 3)
Natural writing samples
Written word sorting
activities
Editing activities
gran (grain)
slid (slide)
couth (couch)
gite (quite)
fiset (first)
wat (what)
skear (scare)
theree (three)
wile (while)
cepe (kept)
smilie (smile)
obsebe (observe)
feed (fed)
stode (stood)
sare (share)
felled (filled)
antil (until)
beat (bet)
thow (through)
therd (thread)
keept (kept)
mixtt (mixed)
hikr (hiker)
tomorrow
matter
hopping
lining
shaking
hopped
Words spelt at level above identified developmental stage
Developmental spelling
lists (Ganske x3)
Natural writing samples
Word sort activities
Editing activities
eration is taken of the total number of words examined from the four types
of activities.
212
Volume 30
Number 3
October 2007
(c) Mina
Current stage of performance
Mina’s initial assessment results clearly indicate that she has mastered the
features of the Letter-Name Stage. The results also provided evidence that
she has not yet developed the range of skills relating to the Syllable Juncture
and Derivational Constancy Stages. Again, as with Matt and Cathryn, Mina
has produced varied results at the Within-Word Pattern Stage of development. Her skills in several features of this stage were extremely strong,
while others, such as r-controlled patterns, were less firm. This indicates the
Within-Word Pattern Stage is her current developmental stage, but the
Words spelt at level below identified developmental stage
Developmental Spelling
Lists (Ganske x 3)
palece (palace)
yarw (yawn)
panit (paint)
calw (crawl)
suffle (shuffle)
smwing (swimming)
Natural writing samples
quit (quite)
thery (very)
spac (space)
sald (sailed)
shote (short)
eskap (escape)
kepd (kept)
geat (great)
Cina (China)
measge (message)
sevisve (service)
Written word sorting
activities
Editing activities
stov (stove)
drema (dreamer)
swuming (squirming)
Words spelt at level above identified developmental stage
Developmental spelling
lists (Ganske x3)
Natural writing samples
Word sort activities
Editing activities
coming
worried
sudden
YOUNG • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2007. pp. 203–220
Table 5. Developmental stage inconsistencies: Mina.
instances of high performance at this stage indicate she is likely to have been
engaged at this level for some time.
Mina displayed 20 inconsistencies below her developmental stage for
various word features, such as consonant blends and short vowel sounds.
However, as was found with Matt and Cathryn, considering the greater
picture of all words examined, these inconsistencies are minimal. Only three
words from her total sample of 1109 words were found to be spelled above
her identified developmental spelling stage.
Mina’s spelling performance clearly points towards consistency for
someone working at the Within-Word Pattern Stage of spelling development.
(d) Max
Current stage of performance
Max performed confidently at the Letter-Name and Within-Word Pattern
Stages during initial assessments and has clearly surpassed these levels of
development. In contrast, the initial assessments provided no evidence that
would support his performance at the Derivational Constancy Stage. His
213
Australian
Journal of Language
and Literacy
YOUNG • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2007. pp. 203–220
Table 6. Developmental stage inconsistencies: Max.
Words spelt at level below identified developmental stage
Developmental Spelling
Lists (Ganske x 3)
Natural writing samples
Written word sorting
activities
Editing activities
Derivational constancy
spelling list
sluite (salute)
compet (compete)
crounty (country)
prehaps (perhaps)
where (were)
thisty (thirsty)
anther (another)
cunck (chunk)
heared (heard)
repired (repaired)
meting (meeting)
wached (watched)
warried (worried)
apon (upon)
suddnly (suddenly)
anoter (another)
eithr (either)
scrached (scratched)
steem (stem)
edmire (admire)
qusuime (consume)
consunstion
(consumption)
Words spelt at level above identified developmental stage
Developmental spelling
lists (Ganske x3)
Natural writing samples
Word sort activities
Editing activities
214
Volume 30
Number 3
October 2007
coutch (couch)
oueit (cute)
yarwn (yawn)
performance
mixed performance at the Syllable Juncture Stage indicated this is his current
level of performance.
We see for the fourth time during review of the children’s developmental
consistency, that the number of words spelt above or below the identified
developmental stage is minimal given the total number of words reviewed.
Indeed, only 26 inconsistent words out of the 982 words examined have
been identified.
Max’s performance in the five types of activities examined supports the
notion that he demonstrates the skills expected of a Syllable Juncture speller
with consistency.
Words spelt at level below identified developmental stage
Developmental Spelling
Lists (Ganske x 3)
cluch (clutch)
queit (cute)
place (palace)
coutch (couch)
Natural writing
samples
bload (blood)
vegetariane
foud (found)
untell (until)
creid (cried)
uncunftable
(uncomfortable)
hurd (herd)
sended (sent)
exept (excpt)
Editing activities
scrached (scratched)
banage (bandage)
kepd (kept)
parnts (parents)
Derivational constancy
spelling list
edmire (admire)
irruption (eruption)
conbine (combine)
cunsumption
(consumption)
Written word sorting
activities
Words spelt at level above identified developmental stage
Developmental spelling
lists (Ganske x3)
Natural writing
samples
YOUNG • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2007. pp. 203–220
Table 7. Developmental stage inconsistencies: India.
Word sort activities
Editing activities
Derivational constancy
spelling list
revise/revision
(e) India
Current stage of performance
During India’s initial assessments she exhibited mastery of the Letter-Name
and Within-Word Pattern Stages, but her scores were not adequate to
suggest she was working at the Derivational Constancy Stage. She was,
therefore, identified at the Syllable Juncture Stage. The number of strong
Syllable Juncture skills present would imply that India has been working at
this level for an extended period and is likely to be approaching mastery.
The number of inconsistencies found outside India’s developmental
stage is even fewer than the other children examined thus far: a total of 22
215
Australian
Journal of Language
and Literacy
YOUNG • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2007. pp. 203–220
inconsistencies of the 1083 words analysed. India clearly incorporates all
skills from the previously mastered developmental stages to spell correctly
in the majority of instances. Inconsistencies do exist across activities, but
they do not substantially impact upon the total percentage of correctly
spelled words that were reviewed.
The review of individual word features produced under five different
types of spelling-activity experience demonstrates a high level of consistency for a child who has mastered the Letter-Name and Within-Word Pattern
Stages and who is in the process of reaching proficiency with Syllable
Juncture features.
(f) Eric
Current stage of performance
Eric’s ability to apply features prescribed for the Letter-Name, Within-Word
Pattern and Syllable Juncture Stages demonstrated command of these stages.
The first indication of significant spelling difficulty arose when examining
the features associated with the Derivational Constancy Stage and this has
been identified as his current stage of spelling development.
Six inconsistencies within 1156 words are insignificant when consideration is taken of the accurate spellings presented in the five different types of
activities. The specific word features spelled incorrectly in the instances of
Table 8. Developmental stage inconsistencies: Eric.
Words spelt at level below identified developmental stage
Developmental Spelling
Lists (Ganske x 3)
mino (minnow)
likable (likeable)
Written word sorting
activities
safety (safety)
Natural writing samples
timeley (timely)
triped (tripped)
Editing activities
scrached (scratched)
Developmental spelling
lists (Ganske x3)
n/a
Natural writing samples
n/a
Word sort activities
n/a
Words spelt at level above identified developmental stage
216
Volume 30
Number 3
October 2007
Editing activities
n/a
Table 9. Collective-case summary.
Participant
Identified Stage
Matt
Early Within-Word
Pattern
Cathryn
Mina
Max
India
Eric
(g)
No. words
examined
No. of
inconsistencies
Within-Word Pattern
858
29
Syllable Juncture
982
26
Within-Word Pattern
Later Syllable Juncture
Derivational Constancy
817
1109
1083
1156
31
20
22
6
Collective-case summary
YOUNG • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2007. pp. 203–220
inconsistency were, at other times, spelled accurately by Eric and would be
considered lapses in proficiency for reasons other than lack of orthographic
knowledge and understanding.
From the evidence presented by the six children, each performs consistently within their developmental stage. When reviewing the performance
of the children working at the more advanced stages of development, such
as Eric, inconsistencies become even less apparent.
Discussion and conclusion
When taking into consideration the specific features of each stage of spelling
development it was found that, across the range of activities presented, the
children spelled words consistently within their identified developmental
stage. Indeed, only 6 to 35 words out of the 817 to 1156 words analysed were
spelled demonstrating spelling knowledge above or below that expected for
the specific stage of development. It has also been found that children spell
consistently across tasks, whether writing in context, revising or spelling
words in isolation. These findings suggest that the developmental stage
theory of spelling has sufficient flexibility and detail to describe children’s
spelling performance accurately and meaningfully.
Given the consistency within which these spellers were found to perform
it is suggested that greater emphasis needs to be placed on carefully assessing each child to determine their current developmental stage of spelling.
The two initial assessment tools used in this study (Ganske, 1993; Bear et al.,
1996) have been extremely useful in this regard. Time devoted to spelling
assessment could be better spent utilising tools such as these rather than
217
Australian
Journal of Language
and Literacy
YOUNG • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2007. pp. 203–220
218
Volume 30
Number 3
October 2007
norm-referenced tools (such as the South Australian Spelling Test) that are
sometimes used as identification measures of spelling ability but provide
little information about the specific strengths and weaknesses of individual
children.
Error analysis has been a key approach to determining spelling performance and is an extremely useful measure. The results of this study would
suggest, however, that we should also take note of correct spellings made by
children above their expected level of development. By analysing correct
spellings we may be able to uncover the source of success in spelling these
words. For example, asking a child to explain his/her rationale for a correct
spelling which demonstrates Derivational Constancy knowledge may reveal
(a) an effective teaching episode, (b) effective use of an available spelling
resource, or even (c) insights into the child’s personally developed strategies
for success. After uncovering this information we are then in a position to
consciously incorporate the teaching approach, the resource, or the child’s
personal strategy into their spelling program to continue to build upon the
child’s emerging skills. For detailed analysis of the various cognitive strategies engaged by the children in this study see Young (in press).
Once the developmental stage of each child has been carefully established, children can be grouped accordingly. Each spelling program within
the classroom should then be purposefully developed to:
•
•
•
ensure mastery of each component within the current stage of spelling
performance
endeavour to progress each child’s spelling knowledge toward the next
developmental stage
incorporate a range of purposefully constructed activities (such as the
four utilised in this study) to enable children to generalise orthographic
knowledge and understanding.
Also worthy of consideration in a developmental-focused spelling
program is the possibility of educating children about the skills expected to
be mastered at each stage. Raising a child’s awareness of the specific spelling
skills he/she already possesses and those that are being working toward (as
outlined in Table 2) may be useful for some children in self-monitoring their
spelling progress. Explicitly uncovering the characteristics of a child’s developmental stage could assist in greater orthographic understanding and subsequently greater success in achieving mastery with each of the individual
component skills relevant at each developmental stage.
The ‘think aloud’ research methodology was found to be very insightful
in uncovering children’s cognitive processes when spelling both known and
unknown words. For further detail of the ‘think aloud’ process and associated data analysis procedures see Young (2005). Having children ‘think aloud’
while they engage in spelling-related activities is very useful in this regard
References
Bean, W. & Bouffler, C. (1987). Spell by Writing. PETA: Sydney.
Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S. & Johnson, F. (1996). Words Their Way: Word
Study for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling Instruction. Englewood Cliffs: Merrill.
Bear, D.R. & Templeton, S. (1998). Explorations in developmental spelling:
Foundations for learning and teaching phonics, spelling and vocabulary. The
Reading Teacher, 52(3), 222–242.
Bear, D.R., Truex, P. & Barone, D. (1989). In search of meaningful diagnosis: Spellingby-stage assessment of literacy proficiency. Adult Literacy and Basic Education, 13(3),
165–185.
Beers, C.S. & Beers, J.W. (1992). Children’s spelling of English inflectional morphology. In S. Templeton & D.R. Bear (Eds.). The Development of Orthographic Knowledge
and the Foundations of Literacy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 231–251.
Beers, J.W., Beers, C. & Grant, K. (1977). The logic behind children’s spelling.
Elementary School Journal, 77, 238–242.
Beers, J.W. & Henderson, E.H. (1977). A study of developing orthographic concepts
among first grade children. Research in the Teaching of English, 11, 133–148.
Bissex, G.L. (1980). Gnys at Wrk: A Child Learns to Write and Read. Boston: Harvard
University Press.
Chandler, K. & Mapleton Teacher-Research Group (2000). Squaring up to spelling: A
teacher-research group surveys parents. Language Arts, 77(3), 224–231.
Ellis, N.C. (1994). Longitudinal studies of spelling acquisition. In G.D.A. Brown &
N.C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Spelling: Theory, Process and Intervention. Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 155–178.
Ellis, N.C. (1997). Interactions in the development of reading and spelling: Stages,
strategies, and exchange of knowledge. In C. Perfetti, L. Rieben and M. Fayol
(Eds.), Learning to Spell: Research, Theory, and Practice Across Languages. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ganske, K. (1993). Developmental Spelling Analysis – A Qualitative Measure for
Assessment and Instructional Planning. Virginia: University of Virginia.
Gentry, J.R. (1981). Learning to spell developmentally. The Reading Teacher. 34(4),
378–381.
Gentry, J.R. (1982). An analysis of development spelling in GYNS AT WRK. The
Reading Teacher, 36(2), 192–200.
Gentry, J.R. (1984). Developmental aspects of learning to spell. Academic Therapy,
20(1), 11–19.
YOUNG • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2007. pp. 203–220
and should also form part of children’s spelling programs. Incorporating
this strategy for both novice and expert spellers can be valuable in making
instructional decisions. This method could also prove useful as a peer tutoring strategy whereby more competent spellers talk through their personal
strategies and approaches to their less capable peers.
The developmental stage theory of spelling has been well established
and a comprehensive body of literature exists outlining the skills and knowledge expected at each stage. There is also much written about the types of
activities which support spelling development. Given the consistency which
these children were found to spell within their identified spelling stage,
greater investment needs to be made to identify current level of performance
and then to program accordingly.
219
Australian
Journal of Language
and Literacy
YOUNG • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2007. pp. 203–220
220
Volume 30
Number 3
October 2007
Gentry, J.R. (1987). Spel ... is a Four-letter Word. Gosford, NSW: Ashton Scholastic.
Gentry, J.R. & Gillet. J. (1993). Teaching Kids to Spell. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Henderson, E.H. (1990). Teaching Spelling (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Henderson, E.H. & Beers, J.W. (1980). Developmental and Cognitive Aspects of Learning
to Spell: A Reflection of Word Knowledge. Delaware: International Reading
Association.
Henderson, E.H & Templeton, S. (1986). A developmental perspective of formal
spelling instruction through alphabet, pattern and meaning. The Elementary School
Journal, 86(3), 305–316.
Lutz, E. (1986). ERIC/RCS Report: Invented Spelling and Spelling Development.
Language Arts 63(7), 742–744.
New South Wales Department of Education and Training (1998). State Literacy
Strategy: Teaching Spelling K–6. Sydney: NSW Department of Education.
Read, C. (1971). Pre-school children’s knowledge of English phonology. Harvard
Educational Review. 41(1), 1–34.
Templeton, S. & Bear, D.R. (1992). Development of Orthographic Knowledge and the
Foundations of Literacy: A Memorial Festschrift for Edmund H. Henderson. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Templeton, S. & Scarborough-Franks, J. (1985). The spelling’s the thing: Knowledge
of derivational morphology in orthography and phonology among older students.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 6(4), 371–390.
Young, K. (2005). Direct from the source: The value of ‘think-aloud’ data in understanding learning. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 6(1), 27–32.
Young, K. (in press). Don’t just look, listen: Uncovering children’s cognitive strategies
during spelling related activities. Education 3–13.